xt7pnv998x82 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7pnv998x82/data/mets.xml Kentucky University of Kentucky. Center for Developmental Change 1968 Other contributors include Murphy, Ottis. Photocopies. Unit 1, copy 2 is a photocopy issued by the clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information. Report of a study by an interdisciplinary team of the University of Kentucky, performed under Contract 693 between the University of Kentucky Research Foundation and the Office of Economic Opportunity, 1965-68. Includes bibliographical references. Part of the Bert T. Combs Appalachian Collection. books English Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Community Action Program (U.S.) Economic assistance, Domestic--Kentucky--Knox county. Poor--Kentucky--Knox County Community Action in Appalachia: An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky, August 1968; Unit 9: The "Image" of the Knox County Community Action Program text Community Action in Appalachia: An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky, August 1968; Unit 9: The "Image" of the Knox County Community Action Program 1968 2016 true xt7pnv998x82 section xt7pnv998x82 THE "IMACE" OF THE KNOX COUNTY
COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM
UNIT 9
OTTIS MURPHY AND PAUL STREET
August, 1968
lllr C 0 M M U N I T Y A C T I 0 N I N A P P A L A C H I A
An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty"
j in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky
I
§ (Report of a study by an interdisciplinary team of the University
5 of Kentucky, performed under Contract # 693 between the University
F of Kentucky Research Foundation and the Office of Economic
Opportunity, 1965-1968)
{
1
UNIT 9
THE "1MAcE" OF THE KNOX COUNTY
COM UNITY ACTION PROGRAM
E by
_ Ottis Murphy and Paul Street
Contents of Entire Report:
COMMUNITY ACTION IN APPALACHIA
This is one unit of a report which includes the following units,
- each separately bound as is this one:
Unit l-—Paul Street, Introduction_nnd Synthesis
Quality of Life in Rural Poverty Areas
Unit 2——Lowndes F. Stephens, Economic Progress in an Appalachian
Counoy: The Relationshio Between Economic
and Soolal Change
Unit 3--Stephen R. Cain, A_Selective Desoniption of a Knox County
Mounnnin Neignborhood
Unit 4——James W. Gladden, Enmily_Miio Styles, Socinl Participation
and §o:io—Cultural_Chango
Change and Impacts of Community Action
Unit 5-—Herbert Hirsch, Poverty, Participation, and Political
Socializationn A Study of the Relationshin
‘ §etween_Participation_in the Community Action
Progrnn_nnd the Political Socialization of
one Annalachian Chilo.
Unit 6-—Morris K. Caudill, The Youth_Qevelonnent Progran
Unit 7——Lewis Donohew and B. Krishna Singh, Modernization of
A . Life Styloo
Unit 8-—Willis A. Sutton, Jr , LE3dé;SKIE and Community Relations
Unit 9--Ottis Murphy and Paul Street, The "Image" of_ohe Knox County
Comnuniny Action Program
Specific Community Action Programs
Unit lO--Ottis Murphy, Tno_Knon_County Eoonomic Onnortunity Anti-
I Poverty Anna and_unafto_Store Project
F Unit ll-—Paul Street and Linda Tomes, The_Mnrly Childhood Program
_ Unit l2--Paul Street, The Health Education Program
.e Unit l3—-Thomas P, Field, Wilford Bladen, and Burtis Webb, Recent
VV Mome_Cononnuction_in Two Appalnchian Counties
O
ABSTRACT
THE "IMAGE" OF KNOX COUNTY
COM UNITY ACTION PROGRAM
The purpose of this study was to determine what "image" the
heads of households residing in the community center areas being
served by CAP in Knox County held of the program.
Eight community center areas were selected for this study.
Four of these areas were the same as those from which much of the data
were obtained for other units of this study: New Bethel, Kay Jay,
Messer, and Middle Fork areas. The other four areas were deemed most
like the first four in demographic and social characteristics. They
were: Fount, Grove, Ketchen, and Wilton areas. The remaining six
center areas, viewed as more urban in characteristics, were not in-
cluded in this study. The six not included represent, with one
exception, a more urban or village—type of housing pattern. Three
of them were once small "coal towns." The one rura1—mountain center
area was excluded because a special study was underway there.
A random sampling of 398 heads of households was selected from
eight community center areas out of a total of 1,136. Three hundred
eighty-four of this group were interviewed. Two hundred fifty-seven
of those interviewed claimed to be acquainted with the CAP, and 127
claimed not to be, while fourteen refused to be interviewed.
Findings indicate that the "image" held by heads of households
· regarding the purposes of CAP were not very clear. Some one fourth
of those interviewed and identified as being acquainted with CAP had
· no opinion regarding purposes (16.34% to 35.02%).
Similarly, the "image" held of the progress being made by the
program was also revealed as rather hazy, no response coming from about
four out of ten of the interviewees. It is logical to assume that
those who did not understand the purposes may have been using the
wrong "yardstick" in evaluating any progress that is being made.
The findings also reveal that feelings were rather mixed regarding
the stratagems which have been employed in the Knox County CAP. It
appears there is resentment toward some things which have been done;
i.e., the sponsoring of some kinds of entertainment programs at the
community centers particularly. Also, there appeared some resentment
toward "outsiders." Both of these might be reasonably regarded as
symptoms of a failure on the part of Knox County CAP to respect the
culture of the group it is seeking to change.
Though those acquainted with the program and those not acquainted
were found not to differ significantly in their over-all general im-
pression of the program, they were found to differ at a significant
level in age, education, occupation, income, and the distance they
live from a community center. This difference was in the direction of
those who were acquainted with the program being younger, better edu-
cated, of a higher employment level, and of higher income.
It follows that to an extent, therefore, the Knox County CAP has
not as yet been able to reach its most central target: the most
isolated, poorest, and least educated——these tending, also, to be the
more aged--who would appear to represent those most deeply sunk in the
· miseries of rural poverty.
O
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction .................... 1
II. Analysis of the Data ..,............. 5
III. Summary ...................... 25
IV. Readings ...................... 27
V. Appendix A ..................... 28
VI. Appendix-B ..................... 34
VII. Appendix C ............... . ..... 35
VIIL Appendix D ..................... 36
O
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Purpose of Knox County CAP: New Business and
Industry .................... 8
2. Composite of Responses Regarding Purposes of Knox
County CAP ................... 9
3. Composite of Responses Regarding Progress of Knox
County CAP ............... , . . . l2
4. Patterns of Data Regarding Stratagems Employed by CAP 14
5. Effect of Knox County CAP: Dependency or
Independency .................. 20
6. "Image" of Knox County CAP: General Impression .. . 22
7. A Comparison of Acquainted and Unacquainted Groups . 23
I
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose of the Knox County Economic Opportunity
Council Community Action Program is to help the poor ("targets") win
the "war on poverty" in Knox County. The general "battle" plan for
winning this "war" was to develop and employ whatever forces were
necessary to bring about community action. Before there can be
meaningful community action, there must be involvement of the people.
It is more likely that the fullest realization of involvement will
materialize if heads of households, especially of the "target" groups,
in a community understand and approve a program being advocated for
community action. In other words, it was assumed for this study that
a favorable "image" of the program is much more likely to lead to
involvement in community action than is an unfavorable one.
If it were found to be true that a large number of the "targets,"
especially the "hard core" group, were not acquainted with the program
after it had been in operation for approximately three years, were
not participating in community action, and possibly hold an unfavor-
able "image" of the program——it would appear that the time and effort
required to obtain and analyze the data for this report would not
have been wasted. Such findings would also indicate that more time,
a different approach, or kind of effort, should be devoted to
· 1
2
· acquainting the "hard core" poor with community action and perhaps to
improving the "image" they hold of community action in general.
Unit l of this study reports that a significant percentage of the
"targets" residing in the community center areas of Knox County are
not participating in the OEO community action program. In an attempt
to obtain information regarding the "image" heads of households
residing in the community center areas hold of the program, this study
was conducted in the eight most rural of the fourteen community center
areas. Four of these areas were the same as those from which much
of the data were obtained for other sections of this report: New Bethel,
Kay Jay, Messer, and Middle Fork areas. The other four areas selected
were deemed most like the first four in demographic and social charac-
teristics. They were: The Fount, Grove, Ketchen, and Wilton areas.
The remaining six center areas, not included in this part of the study,
were viewed as more urban in characteristics than the other eight.
The six not included represent, with one exception, a more urban or
village—type of housing pattern. Three of them were once small "coal
towns." The one rural—mountain center area was excluded because a
special study was underway there. .
In the eight community center areas included, there are approxi-
mately 1,136 households and from this number a random sampling of 398
heads of households (thirty—five percent) were selected——using a table
of random numbers--for interviewing.
On the basis of their responses to the interview questions, the
398 heads of households were separated into three basic groups as
· follows:
3
· l) Heads of households who claimed to be acquainted with the
program (257 in this category).
2) Heads of households who claimed not to be acquainted with
the program (l27 in this category).
3) Heads of households who for some reason refused to be
interviewed (14 in this category).
In other words, this part of the study was intended to reveal the
"image" members of the acquainted group held of the Knox County OE0-
CAP after its operation for approximately three years, and what dif-
ferences, if any, exist among sub-groups when they are compared on
the basis of the data obtained and their participation record in
community center activities. Also, it was to determine what differences,
if any, existed between the acquainted and the unacquainted groups V
when they were compared on the basis of the limited data available
on the unacquainted group.
The data for this part of the study were obtained by interviewing
a random sampling of heads of households as just described, and from
participation records provided by the directors of the respective
eight com unity centers. The sampling was intended to be representative
of the population of the entire study. The procedure began with the
compilation of a complete census list for each of the center areas
included in the study and a plan whereby the respective community
center directors provided information periodically regarding the de-
gree of participation in community center activities by each individual
included in the census. For purposes of this study, only participa— V
· tion by heads of households was considered.
4
· An "image" interview schedule was developed (Appendix A) and the
random sampling drawn to be interviewed. The members of the interview
team were actually able to interview 384 of these individuals and, as
already stated, 257 of this number indicated that they were acquainted
with the program and 127 that they were not. Each of the 257 who
claimed to be acquainted with the program was asked to respond to all
the questions while the 127 individuals who claimed not to be ac-
quainted with the program were only asked the questions they could be
expected to answer. Therefore, the 257 individuals (acquainted group)
provided most of the data for this report.
The data obtained on the acquainted group were computer processed,
using the NUCROS or multi-variate analysis. Differences revealed were
tested for significance by chi—square. The means of the data obtained
on the unacquainted group were calculated and compared to the means
of parallel data obtained on the acquainted group, using t—test for
significance of differences between means.
-
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
The 257 heads of households who claimed to be acquainted with the
program were separated into three groups on the basis of their par-
ticipation record in community center activities. The three groups
were:
1) Group I--Those with no participation.
2) Group II··Those with low participation.
3) Group III--Those with high participation.1
Each of these three groups was then separated into three sub-
groups on the basis of employment level. These groups were:
1Eight reports of participation were gathered at intervals be-
tween June, 1966 and February, 1968. In each, the community center
director was asked to rate each person living in the area served by
his program, on the following scale:
1) No participation in center activities.
2) Participation in some, but no more than 25% of activities.
3) Participation in more than 25% but less than 75% of activities.
4) Participation in more than 75% of all center activities.
For the eight periods, a person might therefore score as high as 32
(meaning that he was involved in more than 75% of activities at every
report period), or as low as 8 (meaning that he was involved in no
participation whatever). The three groups are:
1) No participation level = a score of 8.
2) Low participation level = 9 through l2.
3) High participation level = 13 or above.
5
Q 6
· 1) Group A--Those with low employment level.
2) Group B--Those with medium employment level.
3) Group C--Those with high employment level.2
Each of these sub-groups was next separated into two groups on
the basis of income level. These were:
1) Group l——Those with an annual income below $3,000.
2) Group 2--Those with an annual income above $3,000.
It can be seen that this sort of an arrangement provided six dif-
ferent classifications within each of the three participation groups
or levels.
Purposes of CAP
The patterns of responses to each of the eight questions regarding
suggested purposes of the CAP as viewed by heads of households in the
acquainted group were tabulated. Only the frequency of actual re-
sponses are shown; responses such as, "I don't know" or "I would rather
not say" were discarded. The eight possible purposes suggested by the
first eight questions actually included some purposes and some non-
purposes of CAP. Some differences were found within the groups and
among the various sub—groups when considered on the basis of participa-
tion. The question was: Were those differences between observed
frequencies and expected frequencies significant at an acceptable
level (.05)?
2Employment levels:
1) Low level = unemployed (on "welfare," "relief," or "retirement").
· 2) Medium level = irregularly employed or employed in Work,
Experience, and Training program.
3) High level = employed full time at unskilled, semi-skilled,
skilled, or professional work.
7
· In order to learn whether frequencies observed within any group
were significantly different from the expected frequencies, the
"acquainted" heads of households were separated into six sub-classifica-
tions within each of the three participation groups (hghg, lhh, and high
participation) and a chi—square test applied. The six sub-classifica-
tions were:
1) Those with a low level of employment and an annual income
· below $3,000.
2) Those with a low level of employment and an annual income
above $3,000.
3) Those with a medium level of employment and an annual income
below $3,000.
4) Those with a medium level of employment and an annual income
above $3,000.
5) Those with a high level of employment and an annual income
below $3,000.
6) Those with a high level of employment and an annual income
above $3,000.
The participation variable (hghe, lhw, and high) did not affect 0
responses at a measurably significant level of acceptance (.05) for
any of the eight choices with regard to purposes of OEO-CAP, except
when the respondents were sub—classified in accordance with the pattern
just described. In fact, only one category, the high employment-high
income group, appeared to be affected significantly (.025) by the
amount of participation they had had in the program, and then only
· with regard to the suggested goal, "new business and industry."
8
I That is: Table l shows that the participation variable did appear to
affect responses to the question regarding goals of CAP for those who
had a high level of employment and an income above $3,000. That in-
fluence was in the direction of the high participants regarding "new
business and industry" less as a main goal than did those who par-
ticipated less, suggesting that they recognize, more than others,
that such a goal is not top priority in the program.
TABLE l
PURPOSE OF KNOX COUNTY CAP: NEW BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
Participation Employment Income Not A
Level Level Level Main Purpose A Main Purpose
LOW Below $3,000 I2 19
Above $3,000 2 2
NONE MEDIUM B€].0w $3,000 3 it-
Above $3,000 0 1
HIGH Below $3,000 6 15
Above $3,000 4 7
LW Below $3,000 ll 20
Above $3,000 l l
LOW MEDIUM Below $3,000 2 3
Above $3,000 2 2
HIGH Below $3,000 8 9
Above $3,0009 3 13
LOW Below $3,000 l0 I3
Above $3,000 l l I
HIGH IICEDIUM Below $3,000 2 6
Above $3,000 l 2
HIGH Below $3,000 [I- l2
Above $3,000’ 9 4
a X2 = 7.699 df = 2 p = < .05
Table 2 is a composite of responses to the first eight questions.
It shows the number and percentage of heads of households who viewed
each of the eight suggested purposes of CAP either as: (l) Not a
·A main purpose; (2) A main purpose; or (3) Did not respond. ,
9
· TABLE 2
COMPOSITE OF RESPONSES REGARDING PURPOSES
OF KNOX COUNTY CAP
Suggested Not a Main A Main No T t 1
purposes of CAP Jxpax. .12s¤.>.s>.$a @@2 QL.
N0. Z N0. Z N0. Z N0. Z
Providing quick jobs
directly for poor
people 104 40.47 91 35.41 62 24.12 257 100
Providing quick jobs
directly for people
generally 121 47.08 54 21.01 82 31.91 257 100
Getting new business
and industries for
Knox County 81 31.52 134 52.14 42 16.34 257 100
Helping poor people
to organize and
demand rights 96 37.36 86 33.46 75 29.18 257 100
Helping poor people
become better ac-
quainted with wel-
fare 92 35.80 95 36.96 70 27.24 257 100
Helping poor people
find their own way
out of poverty 70 27.24 142 55.25 45 17.51 257 100
Providing another
way to distribute
government funds 108 42.02 59 22.96 90 35.02 257 100
Providing temporary
emergency aid to
poor people 110 42.80 87 33.85 60 23.35 257 100
It appears from the data in this table that more than one half
(55.25%) of the "target" population do include in their "image" of
CAP the view that this program is designed to help poor people find
their own way out of poverty. At the same time, however, more
people who responded view CAP, than do not, as an agency to help people
10
. become better acquainted with welfare. It may be important that more
than one half (52.14%) of the respondents expressed the view that a
main purpose of CAP is to help obtain new businesses and industries
for Knox County. This would lead one to predict that a movement in
the direction of doing so would be viewed favorably by people in this
area.
One can see that the people living in the CAP community center
areas of Knox County were not in very high agreement regarding the
purposes of the program, which means that the picture of CAP was not
very clear in the minds of the "targets"——the very people it was
intended to help——even after the program had been in operation in
Knox County for approximately three years. This does not necessarily
mean that the "image" in the minds of the people in the "target"
areas regarding the purposes of CAP is a derogatory one but rather
that the image is not clear regarding purposes. lt would appear
that people who did not understand the program probably were hesitant
to approve it and those who misunderstood the program were less likely
to approve it. In either case, lack of approval could be expected to
have resulted in no or low participation in the program; and without
participation, the "targets" were unlikely to become affected by the
program.
Progress of CAP
The patterns of responses to the next eight questions regarding
the progress of suggested purposes of the CAP as viewed gy the
· members of the acquainted group were also tabulated. Only the
ll
· frequency of actual responses was considered--responses indicating the
interviewee did not hold an opinion being discarded.
The results of this classification revealed some differences
among the emp1oyment—income level groups when they were compared on
the basis of participation, but the chi—square test revealed no
significant differences.
Table 3 is a composite of responses to questions regarding
progress. It shows the number and percentage of household heads who
viewed progress as being made, or not as the case may be, regarding
each of the suggested purposes of CAP: (l) Slipping back; (2) Standing
still; (3) A little progress; (4) Good progress; or (5) Did not respond.
One can see that the people living in the CAP community center
areas, as was found to be the case regarding purposes of CAP, were not
in a very high degree of agreement concerning progress toward the
suggested goals of the program——a parallel to the findings regarding
purposes. The picture of progress is not very clear in the minds of
the "targets." It is reasonable to assume that those individuals
who either did not understand the goals of the program or who mis-
understood them were not likely to have a clear image of the progress
toward those goals.
It is interesting to note that practically no one who was inter-
viewed expressed an opinion that CAP was actually losing ground
(slipping back) in the "war on poverty," though several did feel that
it was not making any progress (standing still). It appears that,
generally speaking, about one third of the interviewees had the feeling
• that a little progress was being made, but the percentage who felt
TABLE 3
COMPOSITE OF RESPONSES REGARDING PROGRESS
OF KNOX COUNTY CAP
Suggested Progress Slipping Standing A Little Good No
of CAP Back Still Progress Progress Response Total ‘
No. Z M Z - M Z m Z . No. Z . No. Z .
Providing quick
jobs directly for
poor people 18 7.00 95 36.97 41 15.95 103 40.08 257 100
Providing quick
jobs directly for
people generally 17 6.61 31.13 24 9.34 136 52.92 257 100
Getting new business-s
and industries for _
Knox County 1 .39 28 10.89 104 40.47 38 14.79 33.46 257 100 N
Helping poor people
to organize and
demand rights 2 .78 15 5.84 74 28.79 43 16.73 123 47.86 257 100
Helping people be-
come better ac-
quainted with welfar= 16 6.23 79 30.74 50 19.46 112 43.58 257 100
Helping poor people
find their own way
out of poverty 1 .30 28 10.89 101 39.30 42 16.34 33.46 257 100
Providing another wa
to distribute
government funds 11 4.28 - 76 29.57 29 11.29 141 54.86 257 100
Providing temporary
emergency aid to
poor people 13 5.06 95 36.97 46 17.90 103 40.08 257 100
l3
· that satisfactory (good) progress was being made is considerably smaller.
* Again, it is evident that the picture regarding progress is hazy. One
can see from the table that from one third to more than one half of
the people did not appear to know what position to take. “These
findings appear to point up the importance of the "targets" having a
clear, factual understanding of the purposes of the program; other-
wise, they may use the wrong criteria in evaluating progress.
U Stratagems of CAP
The next fifteen questions were intended to obtain the "image"
pertaining to impact of different stratagems employed by CAP in Knox
County. The NUCROS classification was again used to classify the
frequencies of responses. Responses classified as no opinion were dis-
carded when the chi-square test for differences was applied.
The fifteen stratagems were introduced in order to find out how
the "targets" feel about them. Differences in opinions were found to
exist, but no significant differences were revealed among any of the
six groups regarding their views of any of the fifteen stratagems.
* Table 4 is a composite of responses to questions 19-33 and shows
the number and percentage of interviewees who rated each of the
4 stratagems either as: (l) It had a bad effect; (2) It was never
really done; (3) It was of little or no use; (4) It worked fairly
well; (5) It worked well; or (6) Did not respond. .
One can see in Table 4 that there was some disagreement regard-
ing the stratagem of employing local poor people to work in the CAP,
· but there was a higher percentage (56.42%) who can be viewed as _
TABLE 4
· PATTERNS OF DATA REGARDING STRATAGEMS EMPLOYED BY CAP · .
Stratagems Had Bad Never Little or Worked Worked No
of CAP Effect _ Really Done_ No Use _Fair1y We11_ Well _ Response Total
No. Z No. Z No. Z No. Z No. % No. Z No. Z
Employed
local poor 1 .39 13 5.06 15 5.84 145 56.42 49 19.07 34 13.23 257 100
Employed "outsiders" 2 .78 2 .78 51 19.84 77 29.96 20 7.78 105 40.86 257 100
Used VISTA's I 12 4.67 1 .39 49 19.07 64 24.90 18 7.00 113 43.97 257 100
Used Encampment for
Citizenship personnel 5 1.95 2 .38 30 11.68 29 11.28 6 2.33 185 71.98 257 100
Provided transpor-
tation for poor 2 .78 2 .78 15 5.84 91 35.41 106 41.25 41 15.95 257 100
Entertainment pro-
grams at centers 19 7.39 3 1.17 63 24.52 65 25.29 11 4.28 96 27.25 257 100
Organized sports 0 0.0 2 .78 16 6.32 109 42.41 29 11.28 101 39.30 257 100 $1
Promoted quilting
for poor 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 5.84 115 44.75 52 20.23 75 29.18 257 100
Held open forums
for poor 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 4.67 98 38.13 52 20.23 95 36.97 257 100
Piece work contracts 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 3.11 83 32.30 31 12.06 135 52.53 257 100
Arts and crafts
store 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 2.72 59 22.96 37 14.40 154 59.92 257 100
Combined employment
and job training 0 0.0 2 A.78 10 3.89 98 38.13 32 12.45 115 44.75 257 100
Poor taught new
skills O 0.0 4 1.56 5 1.95 73 28.40 33 12.84 142 55.25 257 100
Provided for repre-
sentation of poor
on Board 0 0.0 11 4.28 4 1.56 66 25.68 32 12.45 144 56.03 257 100
Set up a Charge Car-
store for poor 1 .39 2 .78 15 5.84 68 25.68 27 10.51 146 56.81 257 100
15
· approving this stratagem because they indicated a belief that it had
worked fairly well. On the matter of CAP employing "outsiders" (which
was necessary in order to obtain professional staff to administer the
program), it is interesting to note that a high percentage (40.86%)
of the respondents did not respond. Could it be that Weller's3
observation that the people of Appalachia are person-oriented is true
and that they are inclined to view disagreement very much as unfriend-
liness——and consequently the high percentage of pp response regarding
stratagems involving people? In view of the high percentage who ap-
parently approved the first-mentioned stratagem-—at least indicating
that it had worked fairly well——one might have expected a high per-
centage to have disapproved employing "outsiders." The data do not,
however, actually support this expectation.
It is interesting to note the very close similarity with which
the "targets" view employing "outsiders" and using VISTA workers.
Although the data do not establish that "outsiders" are viewed with
reservations by the "targets," one is led to suspect this may be true.
Of course VISTA workers are "outsiders," but they do not receive
salaries comparable to professional staff members employed by CAP.
See Appendix B for some actual statements made by interviewees
regarding the use of VISTA workers as a stratagem used by Knox County
OEO—CAP.
The Encampment for Citizenship (all the campers were "outsiders"
from urban areas) was held on Union College campus the summer of 1966.
· 3Weller, Jack E., Yesterday's People, University of Kentucky Press,
Lexington, Kentucky, 1966, p. 83.
16
• in cooperation with the CAP. It had been planned for the young people
in this program to work in the community center areas, but the plan
was dropped when the people in the center areas rejected them. In
view of this outcome, it is interesting to note that almost three
fourths (71.87%) of the respondents did not express an opinion about
the usefulness of this stratagem.
It appears that the stratagem of providing transportation for
poor people to attend CAP meetings is viewed favorably (35.41 per-
cent indicating this had worked fairly well and 41.25 percent saying
it had worked well).
The stratagem of promoting various types of entertainment at the
community centers appears to produce more actual disagreement among
the respondents than any other. It appears that entertainment pro-
grams at the community centers were labeled as drinking and dancing
parties in the minds of a sizable number of heads of households and
that no good could come from such "carrying ons"——at least nothing
which would help win the "war on poverty." About as many heads of
households (24.52%) rated this stratagem as being of little or no use
as the combined number who rated it as having worked fairly well
(25.29%) or as having worked well (4.28%). It may also be noted z
that a high percentage (37.35%) did not respond--again suggesting
that respondents were reluctant to respond critically. See Appendix C
for some actual statements made by interviewees regarding the enter-
tainment programs sponsored by community centers.
The stratagem of promoting an organized sports program within
. .
each community center area and among the center areas is viewed as
17
· having worked more favorably than the entertainment stratagem. A high
percentage (42.41%) indicated that the organized sports program had
worked fairly well and ll.28 percent indicated it had worked well.
Very few of the respondents rated this tactic as having little or no
use.
The stratagem of providing facilities (floor space and quilting
frames) at the community centers for the women to make quilts also
appears to be viewed with approval by the "targets"--44.75 percent
saying it had worked fairly well and 20.23 percent saying it had
worked well, as compared to only 5.84 percent who rated this stratagem
as having little or no use.
Community meetings (meetings promoted by the community centers
for the poor people to meet, identify, and discuss their problems) or
open forums appear to have the approval of more than 50 percent of the
respondents, for 38.13 percent rated this stratagem as having worked
fairly well and 20.23 percent said it had worked well.
The stratagem of obtaining piece-work contracts (mostly the
making of toy or furniture parts or making novelties on sewing machines
at the community centers) did not get the rating given the last three
stratagems. In fact, as the table shows, 52.53 percent of the re-
spondents did not offer an opinion on the point. (Such activities
have so far been on a very limited scale.)
The stratagem of establishing an arts and crafts store and shop
in Knox County (a case study report of this project is Unit l0 of this
study) appears to have very little opposition, but at the same time
O
59.92 percent of the respondents chose not to rate the effect of this
18
· project. It was still in promotion stage as the interviews for this
part of the study were taken.
The stratagem of using Work, Experience, and Training (WE&T)
personnel on CAP projects which provided training in special skills
(i.e., carpentry for the participants), also appears to have approval
of those respondents who chose to comment on this subject; however, a
high percentage (44.75%) chose not to do so.
More than 50 percent of the respondents did not comment on the
CAP plan to teach some new skills needed to manufacture articles for
sale in the arts and crafts store. No one thought the idea was bad
and only five respondents felt it would be of little or no use.
Apparently the plan was not widely known. It was comparatively new.
Regarding the provisio